On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, David Jencks wrote: > > I'm not sure if I quite get what you mean here. The tasks in each > > message > > would need to be done in order, but thats only a dependency thing, I > > haven't really considered the situation where we have four tasks, A, B, C > > and D - with B and C requiring A's output, and D requiring B and C's > > output - is that what you're talking about? > > That's one problem, I was thinking more of this one: > Lets say we always need tasks A and B. A is long, B is very quick. > > All of a sudden, we get 10,000 messages - in less time than it takes to do > one A. If the results of A are fed back into the same queue, all the B's > have to wait for every A to complete. This is definitely not what you > want;-). Feeding the output of A into a separate queue fixes this, but > then the advantages of your scheme become slightly diluted... you need > separate output queues for each task anyway, unless each message has a > different set of tasks why have the overhead of the dispatcher.
ahhh, ic. ok, probably showing my greenness on MDB, but afaik you can specify that a JMS listener is multi-threaded if you want, its just not hte default. I'm assuming that the same is possible (perhaps not currently) at a MDB level? that would solve your concern, yes? re the output queues. I dont see such a thing. Any output gets put in the method invocation object, and passed around as required. Do you see a reason why this wouldn't work / isn't as good as multiple queues? cheers dim _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
